Ironic that a company regulated by the FDA recently issued a recall on Tylenol. How many of the suits at Johnson & Johnson are getting threatend with jail time?

Robboe I agree, however, Johnson and Johnson has a certain threshold that must be met, prior to releasing products for general consumption. Supplement companies do not. As an example your claims regarding Triazole and AX are supported by blood tests, and comes as close to scientific validation as possible. You know many supplement companies, especially smaller ones, simply use abstract studies conducted over 30 years ago, extrapolate those studies and then apply them to the general public, now knowing whether or not the science behind their products actually pair up with their marketing claims. I think supplement companies should have to meet a certain threshold with respect to their marketing claims. If a company claims that my test levels will jump 200% in two weeks, prove it or be gone, this will ultimately benefit those companies that are doings the right way.

Nothing like just adding in more and more government. We see how well that has done for us thus far.

Facing jail time is silly, especially doing so based on vague language.

But don't you think supplement companies should be forced to meet certain requirements, especially with respect to label and marketing claims? If you're going to spend a large amount of money on marketing, then allocate those same funds to support marketing claims.

Facing jail time is silly, especially doing so based on vague language.

But don't you think supplement companies should be forced to meet certain requirements, especially with respect to label and marketing claims? If you're going to spend a large amount of money on marketing, then allocate those same funds to support marketing claims.

Nope. If there is a study to backup their claims, they have every right to market it that way.

The problem is now playing as a victim. Here is the kicker now, the consumer has every right to do their own research to make informed decisions. Playing the victim only leads to more nanny state.

With label claims, yes, if it is on the label it needs to be in there, if it isnt on the label, it better not be in there.

Nope. If there is a study to backup their claims, they have every right to market it that way.

The problem is now playing as a victim. Here is the kicker now, the consumer has every right to do their own research to make informed decisions. Playing the victim only leads to more nanny state.

With label claims, yes, if it is on the label it needs to be in there, if it isnt on the label, it better not be in there.

The onus shouldn't be on the consumer to disprove marketing claims, it should be on the company, especially since it's consumer dollars that grow the business.

Anyone can cite a study conducted in 1948, without knowing what the variables were and how that dictated the outcome of the study, those studies aren't substantive. If you're asking me to spend money on your product, then support your claims, if your claims turn out to be false then you shouldn't be allowed to operate a lemonade stand. You and I both know that those "studies" and I use that term loosely, aren't conclusive one way or the other, with respect to proving or disproving marketing claims. There was a study cited that said the effects of CEE were greater than that of c-monohydrate, which it turns out was not the case. The relationship between consumer and business is based on reciprocity not misleading the consumer, based on one study conducted in 1938 in a village in Indonesia by a witch doctor. This issue shouldn't be politicized, if supplements can't regulate themselves effectively (venom,jungle warfare, meridian etc), then they need to be put out of business. That's why only I support a handful of companies like MAN or Driven Sports, they earn my business by doing things the right way. Anyway just my two cents, I don't feel the need to turn this into a political campaign ad.

The onus shouldn't be on the consumer to disprove marketing claims, it should be on the company, especially since it's consumer dollars that grow the business.

Anyone can cite a study conducted in 1948, without knowing what the variables were and how that dictated the outcome of the study, those studies aren't substantive. If you're asking me to spend money on your product, then support your claims, if your claims turn out to be false then you shouldn't be allowed to operate a lemonade stand. You and I both know that those "studies" and I use that term loosely, aren't conclusive one way or the other, with respect to proving or disproving marketing claims. There was a study cited that said the effects of CEE were greater than that of c-monohydrate, which it turns out was not the case. The relationship between consumer and business is based on reciprocity not misleading the consumer, based on one study conducted in 1938 in a village in Indonesia by a witch doctor.

Again, a company makes a claim, and the consumer can choose to accept the claim or move on. You already answered your own question, if you choose not to accept, move on with your money, there is no big secret here.

My question, why would a study done at a university published and peer reviewed be less worthy than a study done by a supplement company with a budget less than 1/1000 of the university?

The whole victim card is why people are accepting the nanny state we are moving into. To many people cry, oh, I spilled hot coffee on my lap while on the phone and driving... the marketing claims didnt say the coffee was hot.

Again, a company makes a claim, and the consumer can choose to accept the claim or move on. You already answered your own question, if you choose not to accept, move on with your money, there is no big secret here.

My question, why would a study done at a university published and peer reviewed be less worthy than a study done by a supplement company with a budget less than 1/1000 of the university?

The whole victim card is why people are accepting the nanny state we are moving into. To many people cry, oh, I spilled hot coffee on my lap while on the phone and driving... the marketing claims didnt say the coffee was hot.

For ****s sake people.

Look not every issue needs to be turned into a political statement. I get it Ron Paul is Yoda.

You're correct it's the consumer's choice that ultimately dictates the future success of a business, by way of the almighty dollar. I just think that in an industry where you think you're taking a fat-burner, to help bring you closer to leading a healthier lifestyle, then come to find out it contains meridian,steroids, or protein powder content is way less than what is stated on the label, something needs to be done to put those companies out of business.

Look not every issue needs to be turned into a political statement. I get it Ron Paul is Yoda.

You're correct it's the consumer's choice that ultimately dictates the future success of a business, by way of the almighty dollar. I just think that in an industry where you think you're taking a fat-burner, to help bring you closer to leading a healthier lifestyle, then come to find out it contains meridian,steroids, or protein powder content is way less than what is stated on the label, something needs to be done to put those companies out of business.

I said label claims must be met. Albeit handing more power to the FDA is a bit scary.

You went on with marketing and advertising. Two separate issues here. Laws are already in place about label claims. Ask Palo Alto Labs about the tainted Aspire with Sildinifinil analog, or ALRI about the meridia tainted Venom. The government can already punish those for that reason.

I said label claims must be met. Albeit handing more power to the FDA is a bit scary.

You went on with marketing and advertising. Two separate issues here. Laws are already in place about label claims. Ask Palo Alto Labs about the tainted Aspire with Sildinifinil analog, or ALRI about the meridia tainted Venom. The government can already punish those for that reason.

Understood with respect to both Palo Alto and ALRI, however, my contention is that marketing claims should have a similar threshold, not based on one study conducted by the smoking baby kid in a small village in Indonesia.

I'm against FDA oversight of the supplement industry on principal, but I despise even more so companies run by individuals with no background in science, making wild claims, substantiated by one study that was conducted back in 1918. That's why I put my trust in individuals like Matt Cahill/ PA both of whom share an educational background that lends itself to credibility.

Understood with respect to both Palo Alto and ALRI, however, my contention is that marketing claims should have a similar threshold, not based on one study conducted by the smoking baby kid in a small village in Indonesia.

Again, why does in house testing hold more weight than a peer reviewed study, accepted by the research community?

A company can make a claim based on their research and provide references.

Understood with respect to both Palo Alto and ALRI, however, my contention is that marketing claims should have a similar threshold, not based on one study conducted by the smoking baby kid in a small village in Indonesia.

I'm against FDA oversight of the supplement industry on principal, but I despise even more so companies run by individuals with no background in science, making wild claims, substantiated by one study that was conducted back in 1918. That's why I put my trust in individuals like Matt Cahill/ PA both of whom share an educational background that lends itself to credibility.

Holy crap, how many times are you going to edit your posts? It gets hard to keep up when I see 4 edits.

That is the beauty of free enterprise my friend. One study back from the dawn of time is good enough to explore further. If the products do not work, or do no do as intended, then the company will be phased out by free enterprise. You do remember when Matt put out Divinil correct? Based on one study in Japanese from some "Back house" researcher right? And proof is in when people started dosing Activate and showing it was gold. That research proved to be substantial... or how about Epi? That was some Japanese study again.

Because if that's the case....anyone can do it, doesn't mean those "studies" are valid, based on certain variables.

An impartial study should be conducted by a third party, with no financial interest in the outcome, that lends itself to credibility. In-house studies are hardly impartial.

Then my friend.. you can throw out your DS bottles, your RPN bottles, and about any other bottle of supplements beyond MuscleTech. Funding a third party study is not cheap, and no venture capitalist would back someone to upstart a company like that.

You cannot have it both ways. You can get cheap, effective product based on research done in the medical community, or you can buy MuscleTech with the budget to run their own studies, then overpay even more because of their new overhead.

Holy crap, how many times are you going to edit your posts? It gets hard to keep up when I see 4 edits.

That is the beauty of free enterprise my friend. One study back from the dawn of time is good enough to explore further. If the products do not work, or do no do as intended, then the company will be phased out by free enterprise. You do remember when Matt put out Divinil correct? Based on one study in Japanese from some "Back house" researcher right? And proof is in when people started dosing Activate and showing it was gold. That research proved to be substantial... or how about Epi? That was some Japanese study again.

But you can keep acting like research means nothing.

I always edit after the fact, by habit. Never to change my pov, only to make sure I'm conveying it in a way that is tangible.

Again Matt took those studies and went further by revealing blood test results (Divanil) that supported his claims. He went the extra step and in doing so it earned him respect throughout the industry, same thing with Patrick Arnold, they don't just cite abstract studies, by way virtue of their chemistry backgrounds they clearly understand "science", and take those studies further by producing effective products. Some supplement companies are headed up by individuals with no background in science/chemistry, who simply put out products based on obscure studies that aren't conclusive.

Then my friend.. you can throw out your DS bottles, your RPN bottles, and about any other bottle of supplements beyond MuscleTech. Funding a third party study is not cheap, and no venture capitalist would back someone to upstart a company like that.

You cannot have it both ways. You can get cheap, effective product based on research done in the medical community, or you can buy MuscleTech with the budget to run their own studies, then overpay even more because of their new overhead.

Assuming of course that those products are effective. In any event I already stated I'm against FDA oversight. I'm also against marketing pseudo-science.

I always edit after the fact, by habit. Never to change my pov, only to make sure I'm conveying it in a way that is tangible.

Again Matt took those studies and went further by revealing blood test results (Divanil) that supported his claims. He went the extra step and in doing so it earned him respect throughout the industry, same thing with Patrick Arnold, they don't just cite abstract studies, by way of there chemistry backgrounds they understand "science". Some supplement companies are headed up by individuals with no background in science/chemistry, who simply put out products based on obscure studies that aren't conclusive.

Ah, i think I get it now, you weren't around for the start-up of DS. You realize it did not start the way you think it has. And lets not forget, your idea here is not third party testing in a supposed controlled environment.

So medical studies are not good because there could be other variables, but in house testing of someone who isn't controlled is?

And let this not get confusing... I love DS and their products, it is not meant any ill will toward them, but your argument is full of holes here. Matt is a brilliant guy and will continue success.

Robboe I agree, however, Johnson and Johnson has a certain threshold that must be met, prior to releasing products for general consumption. Supplement companies do not. As an example your claims regarding Triazole and AX are supported by blood tests, and comes as close to scientific validation as possible. You know many supplement companies, especially smaller ones, simply use abstract studies conducted over 30 years ago, extrapolate those studies and then apply them to the general public, now knowing whether or not the science behind their products actually pair up with their marketing claims. I think supplement companies should have to meet a certain threshold with respect to their marketing claims. If a company claims that my test levels will jump 200% in two weeks, prove it or be gone, this will ultimately benefit those companies that are doings the right way.

I totally agree, they HAVE to be held to a high standard. But given ALL of their stringent quality control and quality assurances, how did contaminated product even make it out of the factory? A certain threshold has to be met prior to release - they didn't, but the product was released anyway. No threats of jail time from the FDA.

In addition, something i learned just this week is that there is a silent recall of Motrin occuring. J&J are referring to it as a "soft market withdrawal" even though the FDA wanted it to be a "national recall". The reason for this is that the FDA can't actually enforce recalls, they can only suggest them. Great "administration".

Ah, i think I get it now, you weren't around for the start-up of DS. You realize it did not start the way you think it has. And lets not forget, your idea here is not third party testing in a supposed controlled environment.

So medical studies are not good because there could be other variables, but in house testing of someone who isn't controlled is?

And let this not get confusing... I love DS and their products, it is not meant any ill will toward them, but your argument is full of holes here. Matt is a brilliant guy and will continue success.

Driven Sports was formerly known as Designer Supplements or am I off here?

I'm not stating that I trust a "brand", that's a stretch. Let me be clear, I trust the individuals behind the brand, especially people with chemistry backgrounds like Cahill and Patrick Arnold. In essence, when they speak on a given topic I know they have the goods to support their contentions. I'd be less inclined to listen to someone who has no background in chemistry and/or science. Again if a company makes a claim that states your test levels will jump up 200%, then validate those claims, in turn you'll earn consumer trust along with my business, which is a healthier long term business strategy.

I totally agree, they HAVE to be held to a high standard. But given ALL of their stringent quality control and quality assurances, how did contaminated product even make it out of the factory? A certain threshold has to be met prior to release - they didn't, but the product was released anyway. No threats of jail time from the FDA.

In addition, something i learned just this week is that there is a silent recall of Motrin occuring. J&J are referring to it as a "soft market withdrawal" even though the FDA wanted it to be a "national recall". The reason for this is that the FDA can't actually enforce recalls, they can only suggest them. Great "administration".